Declaration by Judge Petrén (as appended immediately after the order)

Judge GROSmakes the following declaration:

1have voted against the deferment of the consideration of thedocument
filed on18 May; the question could and should have been settled imme-
diately, and independently of the problem of the Court's jurisdiction in
the case referred to in the operative paragraph of the presentder, by a
finding to the effectthat the document in questiondoes not comply with
the provisions of Article62 of the Statute of the Court, concerning inter-
vention.

Judge PETRÉN makes the following declaration:

Declaration by Judge Gros (as appended immediately after the order)

Judge GROSmakes the following declaration:

1have voted against the deferment of the consideration of thedocument
filed on18 May; the question could and should have been settled imme-
diately, and independently of the problem of the Court's jurisdiction in
the case referred to in the operative paragraph of the presentder, by a
finding to the effectthat the document in questiondoes not comply with
the provisions of Article62 of the Statute of the Court, concerning inter-
vention.

Judge PETRÉN makes the following declaration:

Declaration of President Lachs (translation, as appended immediately after the order)

M. LACHS P,résident, faitla déclaration suivante:

The Court maywishto commentfurther on the question of the appoint-
ment of judges ad hocin the present proceedingswhenpronounciiig upon
the request for advisory opinion. Individual Members of the Court will

of course be entitled, in exercise of the right conferred on them by
Article57 of the Statute, also to express their. views on the subject at
that time.

M. Mo~ozov, juge, joint à l'ordonnance l'exposéde son opinion
dissidente.

Separate Opinion of Judge Nagendra Singh

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE NAGENDRA SINGH

While voting with the majority for what in legaleffectnow constitutes a

clear withdrawal by the Applicant of its request for interim measures
sought under Article 41 of the Statute of the Court, 1have al1along felt
that inthis case, irrespective of the competence of the Court in relation to
the Applicant (Pakistan) and the absent non-applicant (India), which
aspect will beexamined in the second phase, it ispatently obvious that the
Court has nojurisdiction in relation to Bangla-Desh.

Declaration by Judge Jiménez de Aréchaga (as appended immediately after the order)

has she invoked any basis of jurisdiction vis-à-vis France in her request
to intervene.
The Court should have decided upon this request itself as required by
Article 62 of the Statute of the Court and should, in my view, have
rejected iton the ground that the condition of reciprocity of an obligation
to accept the Court's jurisdiction was wholly absent between Fiji and
France.

Judges DILLARa Dnd Sir Humphrey WALDOCm Kake the followingjoint
declaration:

Joint declaration by Judges Dillard and Sir Humphrey Waldock (as appended immediately after the order)

has she invoked any basis of jurisdiction vis-à-vis France in her request
to intervene.
The Court should have decided upon this request itself as required by
Article 62 of the Statute of the Court and should, in my view, have
rejected iton the ground that the condition of reciprocity of an obligation
to accept the Court's jurisdiction was wholly absent between Fiji and
France.

Judges DILLARa Dnd Sir Humphrey WALDOCm Kake the followingjoint
declaration:

Declaration by Judge Onyeama (as appended immediately after the order)

Unanimously,

Finds that the Application of the Government of Fiji for permission to
intervene in the proceedingsinstituted by Australia against France lapses,
and that no further action thereon is called for on the part of the Court.

Done in English and in French, the English text being aüthoritative,
at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this twentieth day of December, one
thousand nine hundred and seventy-four, in four copies, one of which
wili be deposited in the archives of the Court, and the others transmitted

Links